| 15:30 | <jschoi> | https://github.com/tc39/proposal-record-tuple/issues/10#issuecomment-993130019 |
| 15:30 | <jschoi> | Looks like a record/tuple champion is still willing to consider @[ … ], [| … |], and [| … ] as alternatives to #[ … ]. So # as the topic reference is still in the running. |
| 16:38 | <Nicolò> | I prefer #[ over [|, but I also prefer |> #over the two-tokens alternatives 😂 We could also just live with the conflict.|> #[0]will be a syntax error because the topic token is not used, and you will have to write|> (#)[0]. The only silent bug is when you want to use #twice and only once it's in a computed property access (for example,|> #[#.length - 1], but it doesn't feel common: this is the only realistic example I could come up with, but we now have #.at(-1). |
| 16:39 | <jschoi> | What about @[? |
| 16:39 | <jschoi> | (I will also say that I expect #[0] to actually be fairly common. At least for me. I would do it often.) |
| 16:39 | <Nicolò> | It's slightly worse than #[ because @(,@[ and @{ look related but @( is a completely different thing |
| 16:40 | <Nicolò> | Yes but you would get a syntax error and not a runtime bug |
| 16:41 | <Nicolò> | Btw, would @ work for pipes too? (searching in the long issue about topic bikeshedding doesn't help because it finds all the usernames) |
| 16:41 | <jschoi> | It's slightly worse than @( really that big of a deal? Since @( won’t be very common… |
| 16:41 | <jschoi> | …and decorators and records/tuples will not be closely mixed often. |
| 16:42 | <Nicolò> | Well, is |
| 16:42 | <jschoi> | In contrast, private fields and records/tuples may well be mixed often. I give an example in that comment I link above. |
| 16:42 | <jschoi> | Yeah, haha. |
| 16:42 | <jschoi> | All of these slight trade offs… |
| 16:42 | <Nicolò> | @[ is definitely better than [|, at least for me (single char rather than two to move from arrays to tuples) |
| 16:42 | <jschoi> | @ does not work for pipes because of @()’s ambiguity with decorators. |
| 16:43 | <jschoi> | Although, yes, we could do the same thing as you suggest with # and force parentheses for the function call (@)(). I do not much like this sort of solution though. |
| 16:43 | <Nicolò> | Because of ASI? |
| 16:43 | <jschoi> | I believe so, although I need to double check. |
| 16:44 | <Nicolò> | Uh ok |
| 16:44 | <jschoi> | Yes. |
| 16:44 | <Nicolò> | It's the same kind of ambiguity as |
| 16:44 | <Nicolò> | Where you are forced to put a semicolon |
| 16:45 | <jschoi> | Yep. (Also there’s Getify’s suggestion of [| … ], so yeah. But I do like @[ … ].) |
| 16:45 | <Nicolò> | I prefer @[ because [|...] seems visually unbalanced |
| 16:45 | <jschoi> | Yes, it does look visually unbalanced. |
| 16:47 | <jschoi> | By the way, Nicolò, did you want me to rebase that Babel pull request for ^^ and @@? |
| 16:47 | <jschoi> | Since you were waiting on that decorators call. |
| 16:48 | <Nicolò> | Since you were waiting on that decorators call. |
| 16:48 | <Nicolò> | I want to wait to see what the committee says about @init: |
| 16:48 | <jschoi> | Ah, the plenary today, okay. |
| 16:48 | <jschoi> | Sounds good. |
| 16:48 | <Nicolò> | Tomorrow I think |
| 16:48 | <jschoi> | We will see. The schedule is packed indeed… |
| 16:49 | <jschoi> | I’ll also start work on support for Babel records-and-tuples support for @[ … ] sometime. |
| 18:31 | <TabAtkins> | (I will also say that I expect #[...] will be too common of an expression for us to allow it to be a syntax error. |
| 18:32 | <TabAtkins> | Wait, is tuples seriously considering [|...] as an option, rather than [|...|]??? |
| 18:32 | <TabAtkins> | That seems untenable personally |
| 18:32 | <nicolo-ribaudo> | Nope, it is just one of the options mentioned in the R&T syntax thread (not by a champion) |
| 18:34 | <TabAtkins> | okay, phew |
| 18:35 | <jschoi> | @tuple [ … ] >:) |
| 18:42 | <jschoi> | Actually, no, even better: [ … |]. |
| 18:42 | <TabAtkins> | Extend all the things via keywords. @tuple [...] for tuples, @topic for pipeline, there are no downsides. |
| 18:43 | <TabAtkins> | Actually, no, even better: |
| 19:29 | <jschoi> | Nice, Tab. |